tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 11, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
the unions approach is a warning to the white house. but "the wall street journal" opinion pages, unnons be aware of being portrayed as "the ugly face of broken washington." we want your opinion about the labor unions and arkansas senate race. let us start with "the new york times" editorial. the message from arkansas.
that is "the new york times" editorial, their shaikh -- bear take of the message from arkansas. "the wall street journal" has this to say. let us give the phone numbers -- we want to hear from you. we want to go outside of washington and here from all of the across the nation. your take on the arkansas senate primary race. back to the piece this morning --
workers where hey dropped down workers where hey dropped down to the south, and now -- the union dues to be a powerful -- i can't describe what i really but they are the ones who truly distorts our country, to be honest with you. you cannot compete with foreign labor and foreign trade. on the other hand -- which i spoke about a little over a month ago on this oil fame -- i would like to make a comment if i may, on this. host: victor, we will stick to labor and arkansas senate primary, if ww could. we are going to move on to david on the republican line from washington. caller: thank you for c-span. on the obama administration official, i do not think they -- organized labor just lost
millions of money down the toilet on a point this exercise. i thought this was funny. after one of obama's most progressive cabinet labours, labor secretary, gave me a load -- line. od democratic barry, good morning. -- host: democratic line. caller: it does not matter who's politician is in charge. labor -- i think it is necessary, but once again, it is controlled by people who are rich. if everything is controlled by rich people, what is the point of poor people going to vote? i am not going to vote. i did not see any point. host: independent line. clyde. caller: thank you for letting me get in. when you had the gentlemen on that a couple of weeks ago, and
you were talking about farm issues, i recall about a year ago you had chuck grassley -- he is a big corporate farmer and voting against black farmers getting their money. but i agree with their last caller. i think republicans and democrats. i am a true independent. i am starting to wake up and his see that money is controlling washington too much. lobbyists, former politicians, former executives, it is just too much. and it will kill the so-called two-party system. here in detroit where i live at, the republicans in a 90% democratic city, they control of the economics because they bought off the mayor, the city council, and they are so-called democrats. it is just out of control. that is why we have a federal deficit of trillions of dollars.
that is why michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the country, because corrupt bought off politicians where corporations are buying people host: arkansas. steve, go ahead. caller: if you are a police officer in our state, you have to be a resident of what ever you are a police officer at. if you are from fayetteville, you have to live in fear ofville. blanche lincoln has left the state, but yet she still wants to be our senator. host: what do you mean, she left the state? caller: she is living in pennsylvania, isn't she? host: i don't think so. caller: they said at it -- that is where she had to vote.
for her to have to vote there, she had to live there. she has a $2 million mansion their supposedly. host: i don't think that is correct. we will move on to simon on the democratic line from mobile, alabama. simon, you are on the air. caller: ok, yes. my name is simon. i work in the shipyards in mobile. i was refering to organized labor. misses lincoln, she should have stood up for organized labor the best she could because in a state where you have the right to work law, if you have a supervisor superintendent, no matter how much protection you are on the job, he can walk up and tell you that you don't have a job. that just happened to me. i just think the democrats should get back into unions because of the globalization and everything. and it is just wrong for the
pich and powerful to try to do away with the union so they can have to they want to out there working. so the democrats should do everything they can -- obama and all the men -- to prop the union situation back up. host: in the piece this morning, it says arkansas is a right to work state and only 41,000 of the 1.1 million workers belong to unions. most of the workers engaged in is one of had no union engagement, if anything, actively declined the union agenda. north carolina, republican line. audrey, good morning. caller: i wanted to make the point, that i think unions or anyone else has a right to try to support any candidate with home they agree -- with whom they agree. but i don't think that it is good for our nation for the unions to try to sway the politics the way they are doing
right now. some of the activities they are doing. a bomb was -- obama's cabinet, the way the act. people who say they are not going to vote this november need to rethink and they need to look hard at both republicans and democrats, looking for the candidate that will try to put some kind of stop on government growth and spending. host: michigan, wally is joining us on the independent line. caller: labor should take -- first of all, america should get a spine and realized back when they passed it and made it legal for corporations to vote, they should demand that corporations when they pay their taxes, cut their taxes in one pot separate from the ordinary taxpayer.
but the ordinary taxpayers money and another pot so whenever they get an office and there were to go to war and spend money, they spend their own money. and it cannot spend american taxpayers' money. if they want to be separate from americans and run their country, let them run it on their own expense. let american taxpayers keep their own money. host: here is the piece of this morning in "politico." he is a professor but also veteran democratic political consultant who worked with most u.s. labor unions. he writes this morning that --
i was very happy to be -- see that big doofus beat. progressive is just a common is turned inside out. host: stored -- stuart, what are your thoughts? caller: i wanted to comment on the caller earlier who said ms. the caller earlier who said ms. lincoln has a house and pennsylvania. it is true because i also had a -- host: god bless america for some things. caller: certain things i like. i want to remind the people in the united states of america, because of this country, one of the best in the world, -- i start off with john mccain.
got to go -- been for so many years. destroy the country immigration law -- one side one side -- one time, one side, one time, the other side. the new generation, the new ideas, new people. god bless america. host: the ap reports out of iraq that the u.s. military says two americans were killed and six wounded in a car bomb attack in iraq. democratic line. anthony, you are next. caller: hello? host: what are your thoughts about labor and arkansas primary? caller: without labor, this country would be a lot -- in a lot of trouble. i find it ironic that someone who won due to the labor vote
would contradict the action. labor is a vital part of the american economy and i think it should be treated with more respect. how crucial it is to the economy. i find it ironic that the southern states, who mostly vote against labor, are the ones whose jobs and transported overseas. that is just my comments. host: grant on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. very good discussion. i did we should be concerned that the unions did not get their way in arkansas -- i think we should be concerned that the unions did not get their way in arkansas. when unions and labor are stymied, the often resort to violence. they have done it before. you can see it happen over in greece now, and it is coming. they are organizing, talking
about taking to the streets. i think we should be very concerned about violence in the country. host: where are you reading that they are organizing and talking about coming to the streets? caller: recently, van jones said annette same political conference in washington where they were heckling nancy pelosi, that something changed last week. and there is more chatter on website about taking it to the streets and doing it like they were doing it with -- in greece. host: joe, your thoughts this morning. caller: i have been a union member for 30 years and i think just like any other large organization, its members have to be active and tell their leaders how they want to represent us -- not just elect somebody and said back and wait for the world to turn up the way they want to. if it wasn't for the unions in
this country, everybody would be making about $6 an hour and have no pensions and have no health insurance. a just wanted to let you know, when rush limbaugh and negotiates his contract, he takes his 12 or 15 lawyers. we just have organizations for different levels of economic success and the unions help me negotiate a good wage. host: from "the miami herald," a story about oil spill, saying it is seeping into the florida water ways. in other news, frontpage of "usa today" -- and also in "the wall street journal" this morning. diversity grows as majority dwindles. but a step closer to demographic milestone or no group has a majority.
huntington, west -- west virginia. a democratic line. it passed. we are talking about the arkansas said that democrats raised and labor's role in that race. caller: how are you doing? i would like to say first of all, i would like to say c-span set up a channel where you have 44-hour, or 12-hour programming like this. i think it is the most informative program on tv. i would love to say this. i would love to change people's thinking a little bit. people talk about entrepreneurs crating jobs. that is true, in a sense they did. no job is created without demand for product. without people at work, there is no demand. i would also like to make a point of about the way people have always portrayed labor as opposed to business.
business can set up a model and they can sell things and make a profit, but labor is basically just acting like these small firms -- wall street firms did, they collect labor pools and sells the labor on the open market through negotiation. that is just doing business. i can understand why people who are all about not restricting people's business opportunity would not see it as an opportunity for labor to conduct business as well. gretchen, i tell you, what we saw down here in arkansas, it made me realize that government in all times and all places, just made up of self serving loudmouth know-it-alls. host: we will leave it there and move on to dave on the
independent line in the dover plains, new york. caller: how are you doing today? i would like people just to kind of realize thattit was labor that created the middle-class and of this country. what about it, we don't see the extent of the corporate greed yet, because they will keep taking away as long as they can. i think it is a shame that we are losing the unionized worker because without it, they make nothing. or they will make minimal. it is unfortunate. that is my comment. host: can i ask you about union is using fees from its union members to put $10 million into this senate race? do you agree? caller: no, i don't. but i don't gree with the corporations doing the same thing that labor does. it never seems to get the
spotlight in those instances but it does -- the media kind of one's labor to be like this big3 host: there has been a lot of coverage of the supreme court decision, the recent supreme court decision about allowing corporations to use their money and weigh in on the elections coming up, and a lot of different stories about what kind of money could be dumped into the races because of that. caller: yes, there has been. but it does not seem to have that veil of sinister action -- like every time the union doesn't, it is like organized labor. like when the bus drove by with the tea party and somebody through an egg at it, the comments out of fox 5, a person from a large labor union that
through an egg at the bus. it just seems that they don't miss an opportunity to paint them in a bad light. it is not that way. just regular people like you and me trying to make a living. basically all is to live. host: we will move on to tom on the republican line from michigan. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thanks to the unions in michigan -- the labor unions have ruined michigan. you gotta have unions, don't get me wrong. but you have to have it for health and safety, to watch out for the individual. i know for a fact like the uaw, they got good pensions. but union is big business. they can automatically take money out of your check for union dues without your say so or not, you have to join the unions. the bigwigs in the unions, all for one and one for all in the
union, but in their contracts, or what they give themselves -- they got -- is that fair? tell me unions are good. they are not. they are actually you're ruining the united states. host: a little bit more from the strict -- piece. he worked with labor unions. he writes in this morning in "the politico" --
minnesota, democratic line. jane, good morning. caller: discussing this $10 million that the unions the donated to the campaign. i want to know how much -- i realize the $10 million was union and i also realize that how much money, if you think $10 million is a lot from the unions, that they have no right to do this, and they are not a, not the, not a. but how much did the corporations donate to blanche? i think if you are going to do
the union, you better do the corporation. that is the only fair way to do this. $10 million is nothing. what of the corporations gave to hurt is way more. we are run by corporations. host: have you seen any figures of how much ms. lincoln received from corporations? caller: heavens, no, they would not publish that. it is an anti-union type of thing. but the corporations i am sure gave more than what the unions did. and we are fine with corporations running america while we pour middle-class simply get nothing and we get no representation. we do get a few. we do get a few. and i'm very disappointed in obama. i voted for obama. i paid money every month to him when he ran. from the get go, his whole cabinet is wall street.
how did we elect at work so hard for this democratic president, and when they talk about the white house, the white house is wall street. and everything is given to the unions. my big complaint is now that, they are just going through this. now they are saying, poor bp is going to go broke. when you buy stock, you are taking a risk. and when you lose that risk, that is your problem. we don't have to pay for it. the 11 andmention they killed. these people in need are going to go without for people that invested in a stock. host: jane, we will move on to brooklyn, georgia. republican line, douglas. you are on the air. caller: am i on the line? good morning. i would like to say that the
lady had it right. she messed up and voted for the wrong person. but ok. back to the unions. the unions, they like to pat themselves on the back and say what they got four people. i would like to remind them of general motors. poor management, one, number two, the unions. they took them down. built sorry cars. bought my last one in 1976 when they built something that was not adequate and covered it up by saying, they don't make whale oil anymore, that is why the car is bad, and your radio went bad. ok. having said that, they say the unions may have done good when they first started but they have outlived their usefulness many years. and this country cannot be competitive when they pay someone twice what they are worth and a company can't make
money. host: we ~ at the beginning of this morning's show that bp is winning a dividend cut or possibly delaying payments to shareholders, giving sort of then iou to them as they come under criticism to not pay out their second quarter dividends. also this morning in the news, here is the headline in "the financial times" this morning. investors fear no limit to the damage bp will have to pay. other stories about the oil spill. ian "the new york times" this morning, it notes for days obama and advisers fend off questions about why he has not spoken to chief executive tony hayward. the president's ommander of the spill at allen wrote thursday to the chairman of the bp bird saying he and any appropriate officials meet with administrative -- administration officials next wednesday.
it also says this morning in "the washington post" that the largest number of claims, 8500, filed by people trying to recoup lost wages. slightly more than 4000 were paid. the average amount was 2600. more than 1000 claims averaging 3800 each were paid to fishermen who lost income and more than one out of claims were paid to shrimpers. data show that the louisiana
collect money for a range of other problems, including damage to trucks, boats, homes, animals, and income loss from rental properties or real estate sales. this morning we are talking to all of you about tuesday's run off a race between senator blanche lincoln and bill halter. blanche lincoln was able to survive and now she faces a general election challenge from john boozman. his morning we want to hear from you your thoughts about labor's role in that race. brooklyn, independent line. andy, go ahead. caller: i want to remind people -- hello? host: you are on the air. caller: i want to remind people that it was in the late 1930's when the corporations used to have little children working inside of these sweat shops and people were being paid the minimum wages without the unions. i'm a retired law enforcement,
we have a union. the firemen have unions and the teachers have unions. if you look at what is going on in new jersey right now, this gov. christie, he is trying to take down the teachers' union. literally try to take them down. and if the unions go away, those teachers will be making 30,000, $40,000 a year living in a state like new jersey. but the same governor who is refusing to tax the wealthy in that state, he will tell the union people, call them a bunch of bullies. i also want to go back to governor -- also blanche lincoln in arkansas. if the unions -- i don't necessarily agree with them going after her the way they did, but just like the lady said earlier, $10 million is not that much in that kind of campaign the lady -- that kind of campaign. the lady meg whitman and california spent $60 million of her own million. host: i think i saw a figure of
75 million, to $80 million produce still there? caller: just think about that. this is just one person who is able to spend more money than labor was able to put a begins blades lincoln. she spent $75 million of our own money and this is someone who worked for a big corporation. i just want to remind people that the supreme court just made this ruling that corporations -- you take the chamber of commerce and they can bring all the corporations together and bring as much money into these races as they can. the unions will go extinct and people will sit around and wonder why they are only making $10 an hour and they have no representation. one of your callers made a comment about. -- about van jones. the only person was still talks about him in the news is glenn beck. host: california -- it says a big winner in this week's
primary with northern california. this piece is from jim carlton from "the new york times." "the washington times" says mccullough loses his lead to scott in the poll. gop primary for governor. detroit, republican moderate bill, your next on call. caller: good morning. , mythird-generation uaw grandfather was involved in general motors, my father was involved fighting to get medical coverage, dental, vision. i just retired -- this is my big question about the unions. all of the big ones, uaw, afl-
cio, team stern -- teamsters, never been a black leader. the book that the late mayor of detroit road, coleman young. i think you all need to read it. he would tell you how racist -- he was involved. i think they still are. we cannot get a black leader in any of the big unions. you tell me how much of these unions are on onside. from what i learned with my dad being so involved, the money that goes into the individual union pockets, that is what counts. if you ever have trouble in the plants, you get into a little trouble, what the union does is let the company just dragging you throw the got here while they take somebody who has a bad they take somebody who has a bad record -- write him of -- this
bad guy, and have the lead and go a little bit. that is the way it works. host: bill, we will go to a democrat in iowa. caller: good morning. as a woman, i worked all my life and i belonged to a union. i belonged to the union because a woman has equal rights when she belongs to a union. host: ok. caller: thank you. host: hollywood, california. republican line. gerry. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been and motion picture business for 15 years -- have been in the -- for the entire period. the union, as far as i'm concerned are corrupt sell out. they guarantee our wages, yes. do they get us work?
nope. do they sell off most of our rights that we have as far as rights that we have as far as guaranteed him late night hours, wages, and what not? no. they are selling off all of our rights. the corrupt union bosses are selling off all of our rights to producers. i went through a grievance for 13 years. in the meantime, the arbitrator died. they put another arbitrator in power, and basically they settled for pennies on the dollar. i think the unions have really lost their clout. and i think the union in the mode should -- motion picture business is a dying industry. host: the caller previously brought up corporations and how much they donated to senator blanche lincoln plaza campaign. our producer went to open secrets.org and found the top industries.
if we could just scroll through them and show the viewers -- lawyers and law firms, seeen to 10,000, -- lawyers and law firms, 510,000. this is opensecrets.org. if you are interested in finding out how much candidates are getting from different resources, go to that website and punch in the candidates and you can see for yourself what they are getting. it shows what bill halter got from some of his top contributors. actblue, moveon.org, 90,000. international brotherhood of electrical workers. united steelworkers, transportation union, all
contributing to his campaign. bloomington, a lawyer. republican line. go ahead. caller: labor unions -- i don't think labor unions are going to solve our economic problems. not as long as our trade policies are an open door to job outsourcing. i understand that bill clinton gave blanche lincoln a boost in arkansas, but when it comes to trade policy, bill clinton is a very dangerous dive. it is the job outsourcing, not the labor unions. host: some other headlines -- plans would allow abortions at military hospitals. it says legislation to repeal don't ask, don't tell, takes on another emotionally charged issue. making abortion easier for him -- women in war zones.
also in "usa today" is the headline -- 9/11 settlement is located. it is about time, a quote from the volunteer who got sick working in the toxic rubble. new jersey, democratic line. francis, good morning. go ahead. caller: i am a retired career and that and also a retired pipefitter from the united association. all of these people who are against unions never belonged to one. right? they always beat up unions, but it is the best thing that happened to the united states of america. hello? host: all right. we will move on to new jersey. independent line. craig, good morning. what are your thoughts?
caller: i am calling because i think that these unions are really trying to help people out. and i feel like it is time that people start going with the unions and listening to what they have to say. there is strength in numbers and they need unions. i also want to say -- it is not a problem if people want to give money -- to still stand on their own a platform and be true to what they believe in. host: up next, we are going to talk with charles holliday, former chairman and ceo of dupont and now chairman of the board for bank of america. he and other business leaders, including bill gates, met with president obama yesterday about u.s. energy policy.
we will talk to him about that and financial regulation legislation. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [[aptions copyright national cable sattllite corp. 2010] >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. but the 23 years ago, president reagan spoke those words at the brandenburg gate in berlin. what did the entire speech saturday on american history tv on c-span 3. this weekend, the chicago tribune and printers row lit
fest. get the entire schedule at book tv.og. >> with the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee elena kagan coming up, c-span takes you inside the supreme court as to the public places and the really seen spaces. hear directly from justices as they provide insight about the court, the building, and all of its history. the supreme court, home to america's highest court. sunday, 6:30 p.m. eastern, on c- span. >> three new c-span books. "in reveling in," "the supreme court," and "who is buried in grant's tomb?" the grave sites and lives of america's president. to order, go to c-span.org/ books. each one also a great gift idea for father's day.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: charles holliday is one of the business leaders who met with president obama, along with bill gates and others, to talk about u.s. energy commitments. i just wanted to show our viewers, you are part of this american energy innovation council. guest: correct. host: you put together a report and recommendations. i want to show our viewers what they are calling for. tripling annual spending on clean energy innovation to $16 billion. currently around $5 billion. create an independent national energy strategy board to coordinate federal energy research. create and fund centers of excellence. at a price tag of 150 million, to two runs of the 2 million each. spend a billion on high-tech high risk energy research, commit $20 billion over 10 years
for energy in private sector. it with taxpayer still angry for a bank bailout, why should you best taxpayer invest more into energy? guest: a great question. as our group came together from many parts of the economy -- nobody really from an energy or utility company. we're just trying to do what is right for the country over all. we saw three things. number one, security for the country. defense security. anytime you are just -- dependent on just a few country for so much for energy supplies, a billion dollars a day we sent overseas for and it's because, that is not sustainable. second, we see energy costs only increasing over time. more and more demands on the planet. so we need to find ways to have lower cost energy that is also cleen. third, we are dealing with major environmental issues. global warming, and just the
stresses on natural resources. from our experience and creativity -- creativity we see in our country around internet and biotechnology, this is the right time to come together on a significant research commitment. host: what was your response from president obama? and you also met with congressional leaders. guest: we met with 30 congressional leaders. i found a positive. this is not a republican or democrat issue, this is an american issue. that is what we felt. very good dialogue. a lot of concerned about how you pay for it. no question about that. we threw out some ideas. likewise, with the president and his staff, but questions, challenging questions, but i think very constructive. host: what type of questions? guest: fy this amount. why do you think an energy strategy board makes sense.
why are these prototype projects necessary -- why can't industry do it themselves? host: what is the answer? why can't the private sector do this? guest: these are very long term, very, very high risk and capital intensive. it is just more than what most industries would have. it is understandable. if it was a good business decision and not too high risk, the would be doing it. what we believe it is these prototypes centers, where you can demonstrate your technology, so you did not have to pay the up-front cost but you do pray -- pay increment of cost. this is not a free ride for industry at all. host: want to go back to the issue of how you pay for it. what are some of the suggestions you are making in your report? guest: i worked for dupont for 35 years. we would have a long-range research budget and we know how much we could spend. but we would from time to time
reallocate the budget. one option for our country -- we spend a lot of country on r&d as a country, a lot on defense and a lot of medicine. we could reallocate between those pops is one step. no additional revenue. also, we look at the $1 billion a day we spend outside, $1 trillion energy bill for the country. only a very small fraction, less than 1%, will more than pay for what we are talking about. when you look at what is in the best interest of users, if there were some kind of fees that would be part of the energy system, that could be an option. host: you mentioned the business leaders are not from energy companies. can you give viewers an idea of how much to run a company, how much energy costs you. what impact on your bottom line? guest: of course it varies tremendously by ccuntry. but of perspective, natural gas
to dollars per unit forever. -- was $2 per unit for ever. $4 per unit now, spike over $10 per unit. certainty around energy cost is not what it used to be. that is one key factor. all depends on where you are. at dupont, we saw this need. we took an effort to keep our energy use flat as we increase our production. we were able to save cuba to bleed over $4 million on -- just -- we were able to save kunitz of lead for million- dollar just on and it. how do we get solar? if you look at a solar cell, 15% efficient. every scientist i have seen -- if we only get 30% efficient, we could change the game. that is what i think it is a good investment. host: when you look at some been
like wind, what do you make of that? guest: from a business perspective, wind, since inception, has cut the cost in half by perfecting the turbines, knowing how to place it and making the right decision. we believe wind it is one area where the research money should be spent. i believe there is a potential to cut costs in half again. then all of a sudden you are starting to become competitive with traditional energy sources. host: i want to read something lamar alexander wrote this morning, he has an editorial, and up dead in "the wall street journal" about win. stop pretending it has anything to do with --
you disagree? guest: my fellow tennesseean, i think he made the case of what we were talking about yesterday. if we can't take wind down to a different cost plan, we have -- he has a good point. i support some subsidies -- and many other countries are doing this -- because of the learning curve. the way would cut the cost in half, is building them and knowing how to make a more efficient and effected. what we said in our report is we are not taking any one technology -- wind, nuclear, solar, biofuels. we want the free market to make the call on what is best. host: before we take phone calls, the viewers will see another idea for you, chairman
of the board for bank of america. they will probably think about tarp and bailout money. what is the status, as bankamerica paid back the money? guest: bank of america has paid back all the money with interest. and i believe our bank is heading in a very good direction and we are focusing on operating efficiently. efficiently. our chief executive officer is doing a fantastic job. we want to play our role in the economy. every other household had a relationship with us. we feel an obligation. host: you are new to this. it brought in earlier this year. -- you were brought in earlier this year. what is the role of chairman of the board? guest: i joined the board last year and became chairman a month ago. it is to leave the board of directors. the chief executive officer's role is to lead the company. it is an important part of the
governance process, a series of committees. we look at the risk, credit, audit, governments. it is my job to make sure the committees are staffed well and we have great people of the board working together to accomplish that. i enjoy working with brian to make that happen. host: bill on the republican line from dallas. you are first. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a first-time caller. i would like to ask your guest about bankamerica's role -- bank of america possible in its creation of the climate change. cap-and-trade legislation, and how bank of america, a depot. -- bank of america, g.e., and others will profit from what is the scam of the climb in exchange in chicago. guest: i an not close to the details of the climate exchange and i am not aware of any unique
role of bank of america, so i would have to pass. you mentioned cap-and-trade. the real question is not cap- and-trade vs tax, but the issue is will we look at a cost of global warming and increase in temperatures and what impact will it ultimately have on the climate. the science is very, very complex. so, the answer for sure exactly how much will the global warming and what we all care about, what does it mean for me, no one can tell you exactly. but we think it is prudent to diversify our energy sources, use a different ways of accomplishing that. it is better for our security, a good step forward. we think some incentives -- it could be higher efficiency standards for buildings and cars. there could be different ways to a clomp -- accomplish it besides cap-and-trade and tact.
our group did not take a position on what the right answer was, but it is something what the nation has to deal with. we are very proud at bank of america that our new building in new york city is one of the great his buildings in the world. we have a co-generation plant, we use low-cost electricity at night to generate ice to cool the war occurred during the day. we take water from the wash basins and recycle it for toilets. i think there are examples and i am proud the bank is doing that, taking steps to make a difference. host: edward on the democratic line from wisconsin. caller: on the advisory board -- they are talking about $10 million investment from taxpayers. the government -- taxpayer should on the money. just like a gamble that money to bank of america toobail them out. we own part of it for a little while, and now we don't, if we
have any innovation that comes from the taxpayer money, the taxpayer should on that. host: we should have shares of whatever comes out of it, a business comes out of it? caller: exactly. we should not have to buy it back from the private -- from the private sector. guest: we are in agreement. i think it is important of the government makes these investments, that the taxpayer get it back. a lot of ways you can return the value. it does not have to be a check. but there are ways -- if it would lower our energy bill, that is a way to return it. but we think the cooperation, though, between the private sector makes sense. why are we the leader in medical technology? because the national institutes of health made investments, yet the private sector generally invested twice as much. that is why we see this kind of program working out. you will see private money coming in once they see
commitment from our government. host: what kind of companies do you envision coming out of this commitment? guest: we are at a very unique time in two broad areas of science. one is biotechnology. one is biotechnology. in the last 20 years we started to really understand life -- trees, grass, all kinds of crops. i think as we advance that further you will find a whole series of biotech companies that can create things in different ways we have not done before. i also think the whole solar area is very impressive. solarcan't drive down the cost curve and make it competitive with traditional forms of energy in the next 10 years, i would be shocked. host: william on the republican line from jacksonville, texas. caller: greta? host: yes, sir. caller: talking about the ice melted up there in alaska.
it a true -- in the winter months, the price is 42 inches thick -- the ice is 42 inches thick in the arctic ocean. host: charles holliday, do you believe in global warming? guest: i went up there to look, william, with a group of people. clearly there is some ice melted. but there are cycles. this year the ice might build. it might build up next year. so i would not argue over any one year. . .
big corporations and businesses that had invested in creating debt for us to profit of a -- off of, let alone the economy, and pretty much being the patrons of the elected officials, i wonder why they are not appropriating their only -- their own capital into these things and why is this made off the backs of our country? guest: i think she makes some very valid points and there. there is a tremendous amount of money in investment. i believe that will return to
the american people lower costs and more energy. if i was writing rules, if i am creating jobs in the u.s., then that is good. if i am taking that technology somewhere else, it should have -pto pay a higher royalty. host: how does this play into, if at all, president obama's plan to double exports in the next five years? guest: i think it is critical. i have been in the manufacturing cut -- industry for 25 years. this is a great industry. one thing i am concerned about is our energy supply long term. if we can be a leader in energy, which i know we can be, i think debt -- that brings our ability
to manufacture down and our ability to export up. just look at how many foreign companies are manufacturing here. host: next phone call, mobile, alabama, republican line, ruth. caller: high school science at teaches us how easy it is to turn any kind of energy into something else, chemical into heat energy, electricity into motion, and solar into heat energy. i have a house that is worse -- worth less than $100,000. i called to put solar panels on my house, a company that said
that they could do it for $45. ñithey said it would pay for itself in 26 years. i am 86 yearsxd old and cannot wait. the only one at that could benefit from this is g., who is caught up in this cap and trade thing. -- g., who was caught up in his cap and trading. guest: the numbers you describe are correct. what we're proposing is something more efficient and more effective, and you get more out of it. and second, we are doing the studies of that we can bring down the installation costs. it is a very expensive thing to do today. what i would suggest is looking
into insulation for your home. and you'll get much better paid back today for doing that when a source of. host: next call from new york. caller: how would he he feel if i owned a 10% of his income ta? [unintelligible] guest: i spent my time in our when money from banks and companies. it is a relatively new experience of being inside one. what ixd see is the ability to move money, to make money available for projects, which is what bankamerica and other banks to do.
it is very important to make our economic system work. i think the banks are critical. we need to have a strong relation, with you are a big bank or a small bank -- whether you are a big bank or a small bank. i think that big banks play a lot of value. with large companies, we like to have a bank that can work with us in the u.s., and also in mexico end canada -- and canada. i think if we restrict the size of our banks will make them less competitive with european banks and asian banks. host: when you say restrict the size, are you talking about a sort of securities trading? guest: my personal view, not speaking for the bank, is that our banks need to offer the same products that of their global
banks do from germany and japan and china. i think we need to have good, strong regulations about we can accomplish what we want. -- so that we can accomplish what we want. i think we can have some very unintended consequences if we restrict banks from doing things that are very natural. host: 7 johnson writes in the blog "baseline scenario -- simon johnson writes in the blog " baseline scenario," that if properly regulated, trading would be less risky. it also make it less profitable. this could reduce the extent of upside profits. this is a feature, not about.
-- not a bug. how do you respond? guest: in general, we are working to find a good solution to financial inventory reform, to find the right set of systems that protect the citizens of our country. if i am encouraged -- i am encouraged that we will sort through the process and get a good answer. host: they will still do this business of derivatives trading, this risky business. what do you mean that they will go into areas that are rare -- less regulated? can you explain that? guest: let's say that you decide to buy a company in europe and you have enough dollars to do that, but it will not close for six months and you're buying it
in euros and the hereuro is mov. you walk in the with the right number of dollars and say i'm going to do this. that is very legitimate. if you restrict the bank from doing that, i still have that need. either i put my shareholders at riskñi due to uncertainty, or go to some other organization that will make me that deal. i would much rather have those deals that are regulated inside this environment. host: next phone call, huntsville,ñi republican line, kevin. good morning, kevin. caller: i am wondering why the guest would expect any of the american people to believe bankamerica when i cannot get
them to respond to any of -- bank of america when i cannot get them to respond to any of my request about phone on my house. guest: kevin, i am very sorry for the slow response, but please try again. we're very committed to serving our customers. host:xd what is bank of america doing on this, as far as those mortgagesñi that bankamerica ha? andq your roleok as chairman ofe ñiboard, what are you doing abot this? guest: board is elected by the shareholders. we represent the shareholders. at the same time, we have obligations to the regulators. we assure that the bank has the right governance procedures to be sure that our customers are
responded to and we meet our obligations. that is our role. it is very clear, the differences, and we're working to make that better. host: but have the shareholders said to the bank, you need to do a better job of refinancing? guest: absolutely, we just have our annual meeting and we listen to our shareholders for three hours. we heard some very good examples of what bank of america is doing around of the cards, charge cards, etc. and our team of mortgages is working very hard. it is just a big workload right now. but they are making good progress. host: we mentioned that you are the former ceo and an executive of du pont. are executives paid too much?
guest: at dupont, we took that question very seriously. we had a limit on pay that was in a range of tying the ceo to other senior executives. sionwe felt that ceo pay back wo buy was just not the right thing to do. -- and that was too high was just not the right thing to do. i think there is natural outrage when it gets to be so far out of line. host: the you think the government and should step in and dictate how much executives get paid? guest: no. host: why not? guest: i think that is part of our free market system.
are they going to step in and say how much a baseball player should be paid? where you stop? i think it needs to be about transparency, so that people understand the numbers in a clear and sensible way. and people need to understand the mechanisms. it is there anything in this pay package that is encouraging the ceooxx%ñ of not to act in the bt interest of the shareholders? host: one last question about this, but some have said that when you have someone that serves as ceo and chairman of the board that there is a conflict of interest there. you cannot serve in both roles. you did at dupont. guest: think either systemmwill work. i think if the ceo and chairman are the same person, then there is a presiding director, for a lead director.
i also serve on the board at john deere. host: let's get back to phone calls here. mulrine on the independent line in connecticut. i will have the producer punch up this line because i'm not sure which line is on. are you with us? all right, we will move on to their role in the -- in delaware, -- we will move on to darrell in delaware. caller: with regard to cap and trade, i'm wondering why there is a change in opinion. guest: dupont, supported a cat and trade system -- cap and trade system. but we believe that will drive the right market economics. and it allows the free system to work effectively. there are other ways to
accomplish this objective. as we talked about fuel efficiency standards, we put those employes to make cars 35 miles per gallon. -- put those in place to make our 35 miles per gallon. we are running out of energy sources. these are some things that we are proposing. overall, we are supplying 6.7 billion people and we need to use our resources wisely. host: could morning, marc, you are on the air. caller: my question is, can, mr. holliday describe parabolic solar concentrators and how they are steeped with the steam power?
who owns the farm and who owns all the natural resources? host: fred, what is your point here? caller: from a philosophical plays, who are the rightful owners of our natural resources? jzwe are borrowing those resours from the next generation. i think we need to be very good stories of those during this timeframe because the generations before us have passed on natural resources so that we could have good standing. host: what is your role in the energy council? guest: at dupont for 20 years, we saw the need to operate our plants in a more efficient manner. and we always saw ways to
increase our capabilities with our products. the opportunity came to join bill gates and jeff amelt and others, such an opportunity to ñrbring this wealth of experienq and we sat down. we did not know where we were going. we did not knowñi if we would er meet again. but what we found was that group ofxdñi people supportedñi with , it was something we could be excited about. and we wentxd to ee$bers&o# of congress andt( they said it was pretty good. i auj website. it is about 30 pages.
ñrfátake a look and it makes a t of sense. host: we can put the website up as we go to the next phone call. linden, tennessee, good morning. caller: i would just like to remind the of listeners that of ... i'm sorry, am i on the air? host: you are. caller: bank of america was also, before we bailed them out, and probably still, loaning money to illegal immigrants who have no social security numbers for had social -- stolen social securrty numbers -- or had stolen social security numbers. when i called the bank of america before i stopped doing business with them to find out why they were doing that, they said, we would like to give these people a path to
citizenship. just think about that before you decide. if we give money to mexico. people are being killed on our borders. and this banking wants to give them money. people that are coming across the board illegally, money. host: let's get a response. guest: i do not want to talk about the detail operation of the bank. we are here to talk about energy, but i appreciate the callers perspective. host: next call from alabama. caller: in response to the lady's question, your responsibility through the housing reconstrrction act, are you responsible to offer
mortgages to people that cannot indicate that they have a job? guest: i am not the right person to talk about those specific requirements. host: can you explain why to the viewers were interested in this, why you are not the right person? guest: thank you. as the board, we are not working in the day-to-day basis of the management decisions of the company. we make sure that the regulations, what is required, and that there are processes in place for the 3000 employees of bank of america that serve our customers and every day, that they're well trained and serve our customers well. host: kalamazoo, mich., ken. caller: his says that there is some encouragement to invest in
manufacturing in this country, and i think he has not visited the midwest. i would like to know where this investment is. host: mr. holliday? guest: i think you make a good point and i visit the mizzen-the midwest a lot. you are right, there is not the investment that there ought to be. when we are doing our job and make sure that our k-12 education, make sure that our employees of this company are well-educated, and we get our costs down, i believe the u.s. will be a great place to manufacture things. it will be a great place to produce software and multiple things and that is what we, as americans, should focus on. host: the republican line in kentucky, doug, go ahead.
caller: you make a good presentation and you do a good job of setting reasonable in the things that you are saying, and i think there are ome legitimate points about doing these alternative roadster energy. but one thing i would like to say this -- roads not to energy. but one thing i would like to say is, this whole thing about global warming, we realize this is just a big hoax. i looked into this issue very hard at a few years ago and when i discovered that we have the same level of warming on jupiter and mars that we have here, and there is not a smokestack or a manufacturing plant or an automobile plant on any of those planets. as far as i'm concerned, that was the end of the story for me.
i just wish that the folks that are pursuing the agenda are doing it for the reasons that we are claiming, that we do not want to depend on foreign energy and for cost effectiveness, and all those reasons. and we want to bring equity into the world scene. we want the united states standard of living to go down and others to go up. i just wish we could put the arguments out on the table that are really driving this issue and give up on this hoax that is man-made global warming. guest: in 1950, there were 2.5 billion people. today, there are 6.7 billion people in the world. we have more than doubled in over 50 years.
we are straining the capability of this planet to meet those needs. it is not global warming or climate change. if you look at the reality of using those natural resources for our standard of living, aad what we are proposing here is simple measures to help reduce the demand on those resources for us and our kids and grandkids. it is a very simple equation that makes so much common sense to us. host: there is a story in the business section of the "new york times" this morning. there is hard evidence that in the modern american financial mainstream, scarcely is their isolation from new york.
can you explain that? guest: i think the message is clear, with bank of america in every household. but we are very connected. i do not see how a bank is going to be very successful of the community is not successful, too. our communities must be strong. businesses will not do great if the communities are also doing great. host: and when the banks are doing badly, does that impact those communities that you have invested in? guest: i think it affects the bank's ability to loan money for good projects and homes and education. i think of will affect the community. we need a strong financial system that will make the lives of the americans much better. host: richmond, va., independent line. your on the air.
-- you are on the air. caller: i hate to digress, but i would like to get back on the subject of energy. i feel that if we are putting our tax dollars into research and the government is giving subsidies and grants and what not, whenever they use to process the research -- what ever they used to process the research, i would like to ask how you take ownership and accept the outcome on the use of energy. i would like to know, what do you feel personally about the governor -- the government taking ownership?
guest: the free market and enterprise system has proven in country after country in the world as the best model. i do think is in the best interest of government to make investments in things, such as our road system, our real way system, and including our energy system. not to own assets -- i think is better not to own the assets, but to reassure low-cost energy to make our economy more effective. i think that is a legitimate role of government. but i do believe that thas a strategy board, there ought to be a lot of leeway in improvements for the economy. host: next phone call, republican line, bill. caller: my battery is a little
bit low. host: and i need you to make it quick. and we are running out of time here. caller: yesterday's senate vote, 47-53, the epa basically was able to overrun what i consider to be the delegation of the congress here. this is starting to look like a big marriage to hear and the american people are starting to lose. the we are starting to lose our representation. i just wanted to make that point. host: charles, if you could wake up in on the vote yesterday -- if you could weigh in on the vote yesterday allowing the epa to go forward with emissions. guest: what we have advocated is new legislation that sets up the right system to do that. host: congress should be doing
it. guest: congress should think about what the needs are now, not going through this legal process. i support the decision that has been made. i think there's a better way to do it. host: you're talking about overall energy legislation. what they're working on right now, proposals by various senators. what did you hear about yesterday, about the time frame for passing? guest: what we have heard over and over again is this is an extremely active time and people are working very hard to find the right combination. given the realities in the economy and a a, i am encouraged that something good will come out of that process this year. host: we want to thank you for talking to our viewers today.
coming up next, we will talk to bill cassady, republican from louisiana. but first, we want to do a 2010 campaign of state for you all, focusing on the road island governor's race. joining us on the phone is just have to tailor, a reporter with politico. -- is jessica taylor, a reporter with politico. you can go to c-span.org if you want to watch last night's debate. what came out of last night's debate? guest: her violin has one of the later primaries. -- rhode island has one of the later primaries. it is actually not until the timber 14. -- september 14.
but they really took a different turns in how they would deal with the state budget crisis and trying to distinguish themselves from one another. host: in last night's debate, how did they differentiate themselves? guest: the treasurer is the democratic front runner right now. he's came out with a small business plan. -- he came out with a small business plan. what is interesting about this race is that someone that good stuff in the wind is the independent candidate, lincoln chafee. he is a long time named in the state. his father was a senator there, too, and was defeated in 2006. he is now trying to see a resurgence and get back into the governor's mansion there. he is proposing to do with the state's budget crisis -- to deal with the state's budget crisis,
a 1% tax increase. in this economic climate, it could be interesting to watch to see how proposing a tax increase could work. host: what do the latest polls say? guest: the latest polls say that caprio is definitely gaining on chafee. but lynch, the attorney general, he is also competing for the eternal -- for the nomination. host: what about the matchup between chafee and lynch?
and on the democratic side, how does that pan out? guest: they will both run in the primary, too. democrats see this as a key pick up for them in the fall. and republicans, they have held the governor's mansion for 15 years. it is one of the more liberal states in the country, but they have managed to keep a hold of the governor's mansion. and you can see both of the republicans their.com by john robotized -- republicans there, john robathai they're not really competing well against the democrats. host: are republicans and democrats from outside of the state coming in with big names, money?
guest: we have not really seen that yet in this race, but this is one of the later primaries. the filing date is not actually until the end of the month there. some of the candidates, even those that have been running for a while, i just kicked off their campaigns recently. host: the primary is september 14. if you want to watch the governors' debate from last night, go to our website, c- span.org. jessica taylor, thank you for being with us this morning. now we want to turn our attention to the oil spill and bill cassady is with us, republican representative from this is -- a sixth district. tell us where the oil spill is in relation to your district. guest: my district is the
capital city of vekton errors. if you think of -- of that baton rouge. if you think of it like a boot, it is where the races are. -- the laces are. host: how concerned are your parish's about this? guest: it has clearly affected the fisheries and tourism, and now we see this as a third hit to the economies of the region. host: and how much of your area is related to the gas and oil industry?
guest: if we are just going to speak of the deep water of rigs that are going to be affected by the moratorium, i'm told ththat there are 25 deepwater rig jobs. and each of those has fourxd or five spin-off jobs. the deepwater rate droprig jobse high-paying position. we say there are growing -- there is going to be a six month moratorium, those wages are lost. there is truly a human dimension to this. host: we are talking to bill cassady. the numbers are on the screen.
you wrote a piece for politico that obama should take the long view on this bill. the administration has come out and said it will go ahead and allowed shallow water drilling. guest: and that is very nice of them. that is very different from deep water. this is a deep water rig. 70% of our new oil production in the u.s. is coming from deep the u.s. is coming from deep water rigs. i am told about 40% of our natural gas is. that is really the growth area, if you will. the problem with this moratorium is that these floating rigs from which they drove to work for $500,000 a day. if this moratorium extends, they will float those rigs to brazil or the coast of africa or
elsewhere, and begin a job there. these jobs are not just lost for six months. they are lost in perpetuity. host: are you hearing from these companies all over this issue? guest: i have learned in this job to say what i have been told, not what i know. but morgan stanley has said that there is only one in 20 chance that the moratorium will end in six months if a moratorium is instituted. if you're a persont( that works for $500,000 per day and it only takes you two weeks to flow to the coast of africa with a one in 20 chance, would you decide? host: why not step back and given the outcome of this oil spill, the impact on the shoreline, which is also impacting jobs, the fisherman, the shrimpers who cannot do
their jobs because of the oil spill, why not take a step back and wait? guest: there is a plan for increasing safety. it is from the national academy of engineering, i believe. and they mention these experts by name saying that they peer reviewed the recommendation. but experts came out yesterday with a skating revival of that, saying that they do not agree with -- a scathing rebuttal of that saying that they do not agree with the moratorium. the president said his administration would be guided by a science and not politics. here is a decision that is apparently being guided by politics and not by science. the scientists say you can continue to do your drilling and oile moratorium.
and when they speak to the fishermen, they also favor host:t( maryland, democratic line, shawn, you are on the air. caller: i have a few questions for you. if one, was the president's job in handling the spill in louisiana? and what is your job in handling a spill like it is now? guest: the president is ultimately in charge and he has said that he is in charge. qas a legislator, i do not have that executive responsibility. i wish i did, but i do not. my job is to investigate and draw attention to things and try to create an environment where the right decisions are made. host: >> phone call, michigan, pepublican line, brian, good morning.
caller: every martial law in the world in speaking of these ships that can actually stop the oil out of the gulf, i have listened to the coast guard. i have sailed a lot of watersu÷. if you put an admiral and his staffñrñr in charge of this operation, bp needs to foot the bill for all of this as far as the second this -- sucking this. i think if we have been in charge of this program from the day it started, certainly we would be of further along out. the weather is good now.
if some of them have to paddle a round out in the caribbean for a while, -- paddle a round out in the caribbean for while, fine. guest: i have been -- i have learned to say what i have been told, not what i know. okçóthey have discussed the fedl response and what they have said is that rough seas inhibits the ability to skim. if the waves of and the chop is 3 to 6 feet, they will not be able to do skimming. the second thing is that the seabed, the dispersants' placed there dispersed. instead of having the oil that rises to the top and can be sucked up, instead, it disperses it below the surface and cause of what is now the world plum. the will plume is not oil. it looks like -- the oil plume is not oil. it looks like water.
it just has a higher concentration of hydrocarbons. is it better to raise it to the top or dispersed it at the bottom? if you dispersed it at the bottom, it is harder to skim at the top. the louisiana coastline is being terribly affected. i am incredibly frustrated that research was not done before. host: next call from massachusetts. caller: the skimming ship was offered from sweden or switzerland. if it had not had the jones law that it had to be run by americans and shipped by americans, the only way to lead in the waters -- and it was given for free and it was a mopping ship used for all those bills. what about that one? guest: i am not familiar with
that particular incident. it seems an unusual application of the jones law. the jones act says if you're going to transport goods like a bunch of groceries from one bunch of groceries from one point in the united states to place in an american-built, american flagship. if you're talking about a deep water reagan, that -- a deep water rig, which is a vessel, that is not transferring from one place to another. one place to another. i think it is safe to say that a skimmer is transporting from one place to another. i am not sure that the jones act would affect that. host: the next call comes from paul, republican line, kalamazoo, michigan. paul, are you live with -- are you with us? i think i lost the phone call. let me ask a question and then we'll go back to phone calls. when it comes to lifting the liability cap, there is work being done in the house and the
senate. our guest on wednesday said that she thinks that legislation could come to a vote before the fourth of july recess. how will you vote on lifting the liability cap? guest: first, let's make a couple of things clear. lifting the liability cap is not -- does not pardon this bill. bp has said that they will make everyone whole. we have to look at the spending cap. host: there is no way they will make that retroactive? guest: they could if they wanted to. if the overall cost is $11 billion, then they will be off total -- $1 billion. -- off the hook $1 billion. the second side is that it is in
our national interest to look up the bill. reasonably speaking, $75 million is too low. on the of iran, there are basically only for companies -- on the other hand, there are basically only four companies that can drill in the gulf. it turns out there are about 100. if it is a balance, sort of a, let's raise it in a way that is reasonable, also canno, a cleana trust fund, money paid by the people that do the exploration to cover the cost of this bilsp, it is basically one that is playing into the hands of the five different companies and no
one else. host: chester on the democratic line in york, go ahead. caller: i am very disappointed with the way that the government is handling this oil spiil. i am disappointed in that allen. -- fadthad aallen. i am disappointed that they came out and said it was a small amount of oil, and now they are estimating it was hoped to 110,000 barrels -- up to 100,000 barrels in the news. all the way of to the president, no one wants to tell the truth.
this bill is well over 10 times the exxon valdez. and we see thad allen coming on the tv. he has no compassion. everyone down there, you watch the impact in the gulf and the response that they had. you start crying looking at the people there. we, as an american people, are tired of being told that everything is so complicated. and when you talk about an oil company, which is the number- one oil company in the united states that does this. they know how much oil is coming up out of the ground. you cannot say that a business
that is really well does not know how much is coming out of the ground. guest: i agree with you entirely. one of the things that has been very frustrating is the passivity of the initial response. if someone got really angry, -- unless someone got really angry, resources would not be focused. i kept making phone calls and asking, do we know how much oil is coming out? lo and behold, 5,000 barrels per day, plus the gas. now they said that they have convened a federal board to try to calculate this. maybe i am wrong. maybe they never told us in previous phone conferences that they brought this to get there. but it was not in my recollection until we began to mention it. host: what about bp's responsibility to know how much oil is coming from that wealth?
guest: in fairness to everyone, when you talk to the scientists, they say it ii harder to estimate denny might think. we have to also -- then you might think. if we have to also acknowledge the physics. there is less external pressure and the gas or oil expands as it comes to the surface. we know there is a the 9.75 injured diameter of the pie. -- inner diameter of the pipe. there is a certain pressure gradient between the bottom and the top. all that to say, i can accept that it is a harder call to make. on the other hand, it is should have been started from day one. host: lincoln, neb., republican
line. caller: i have 30 years' pxperience both as a record -- roughneck and a commercial diver in the gulf. and i have sent along possible solutions. i do not know if bp has not gotten them. i do not know. but the governor of louisiana, they do ot ground the aircraft until they find ut what is going on. the same thing is to be going on with the oil. those people need to work. and with the jones act, that
should have gotten in there and start sucking the will of. guest: i think it strikes me that doug from lincoln, nebraska is working in the gulf. the fact is that there are people employed across the nation the flight to the gulf to work on these rigs. -- that fly to the gulf to work on these rigs. that is because there is good money to be made. and with a six month moratorium and all of these people trying to exist on welfare checks. that is not what they want. i was told by the coast guard -- again, i have been told, i don't know. but that the skimming has been delayed by the roughness of the
seas, not the ships. host: next call from indiana. caller: i want to talk about possible to clean up the oil and how we are only using certain things. i wonder about the new technologies that we are not using, even though so many people are saying they are the right thing toouse. guest: in 2003, there was a report put out called "oil and the c." by the research -- national research council. in doubt, they collaborate to look at the best way -- in that, they collaborate to get the best way to handle oil in the ocean. the report indicated that this could not happen, but nevertheless, it seemed reasonable.
if we're going to do deep happen if there is a spill.uld is it better to disperse it at subsurface, or let it rise? there are folks that have given testimony and they're basically repeating the recommendations of 2003. now it can be done, and i think it took 500 barrels of oil out to the north sea 500 feet below the surface and they released it to see what would happen. you do not want to release it, but they did it to see what would happen. that was not done in the waldrop deep -- in deep water. when these actions are not acted upon, that is frustrating. host: and that is when
republicans were in control. guest: this is a bipartisan issue. this particular well was permitted in february, 2009. if you will, this is an obama administration well. from initial permitting and all the way through all its adjustments, it has been on this administration. i'm willing to say that there is bipartisan way in. -- a bipartisan blame. host: there is a report in the "wall street journal" that bp ways dividend cut. -- bp weighs dividend cut.
you think they should delay that a dividend cut? guest: what they do with their dividend does not matter to me as long as they take care of everyone else. host: but if they're unable to take care of that commitment? guest: then pay the dividend. what they do it after making everyone whole, that is their business. but let's make everyone whole first. host: next call from new jersey. xdcaller: i understand of the budget is going to be cut in the next upcoming process. this is a clear reason why the coast guard budget xtra be increased -- should be increased and brought more into the permitttng, research and technologies, and more advanced
booming, etc. can you speak to the coast guard budget? guest: i am a republican, not majority, but it does appear that it will be in the budget this year. the democratic majority will not submit a budget this year. secondly, they will be reimbursed from the hospital trust fund for all expenses related to the spill -- from the spill trust fund for all expenses related to the spill. one of the proposals is that innerness would split -- whatever they morph into because they have split into three agencies.
obviously, i would hope that they would be funded to support the more prominent role. host: south carolina, democratic line, wendy. caller: you said earlier that there should be a 10% tax on liability to maintain smaller -- be able to operate in the gulf. what would happen if one of the smaller, independent companies have caused this lead? guest: every barrel of oil that is brought into the united states, i am told either by production or by importation on a tanker, there is a small fee that goes into the oil spill trust fund. this goes into the backstop for
companies that are unable -- they may be a $2 billion company, but unable to pay for something that this might do. . . . the government spent all the mope that it gets, and then it the government spent all the borrows more because they don't have any money. there is no such thing as a trust fund. it's just a line item on a piece of paper. host: as the congressman has explained, this trust fund is
funded with money from the oil and gas industry. and gas industry. caller: it doesn't matter. guest: let me respond to that, ma'am. guest: one of the frustrating things about washington -- i've been here a year and a half -- but one of the frustrating things is they're actually going to increase that fee in order to increase the amount in the trust fund. but instead of putting in but instead of putting in escrow, full, for future spill, it's being used in the budgetary process as a pay go for expanded entitlements. i actually submitted an amendment to keep that from happening. exploiting the misery of the people in the gulf coast in order to achieve a political goal of a fig leaf of fiscal responsibility to expand your big government safe. caller: that's not actually why i called. it seems to me, if there'sing if to be a moratorium, it ought to be on the stipulations that the government has put forth that prevents the people of louisiana from doing anything and everything they can to clean up their coast, to take care of this mess, because you can't go back and change it.
it's there. it's happening. they ought to be allowed total leeway to skim, to pick up, to mop up, to do whatever they want to do to try to clean this up. host: congressman? guest: as a louisiana man, i wish you were in charge. i will say that the burn took 2 1/2 weeks to permit. now, if there had been a real kind of energy and focus, i don't think it should have taken 2 1/2 weeks. let's say at least a week, because there was interchange between the original plans, the federal concerns, etc. but 2 1/2 weeks. and then i'm told -- again, i've learned what i've been told, not what i know, but then i'm told the dredgers that would be used to make the burns are in the upper mississippi, and until the decision was made, the dredging, they were not begun to be towed. now, clearly that's a lack of alacrity. you need a focus and energy in this response to shorten the 2 1/2-week period to a week.
we in louisiana are frustrated by that. thank you for your sympathy. host: melville, new york. republican line. alex, good morning. caller: good morning. just wanted to respond to the issue of removing or raising the liability limits. the notion that you put the liability high at $10 billion is going to preclude smaller companies, i think as dills ingenuous. what about the notion of private enterprise and buying insurance for that? the gal from north carolina mentioned earlier, if you had a little company and they created this big mess, the trust fund would cover it. well, private enterprise and insurance would be fine. this way it should underwrite the risk and make sure that the compliance with laws and safety were there to figure their values. and the same with the nuclear energy. we have limits on that for nuclear disasters. any thoughts on that? guest: great response.
i would say, if we could take the wisdom of the american people and channel it on to the floor of the house of representatives, we'd all be better off. if there would be a way to create a private market in which you could get a bond for that $10 million, that would be a good response. i'll look at the legislation and see if it possesses such. host: congressman, do you tweet? guest: i do. host: so do we here on the journal. we have one here. how long does it take for an operation the size of b.p. to get through u.s. red tape? best estimate. guest: well, it depends on what you're speaking of. some of the concerns regarding -- let's back up. to do a drill, they get an ly a.d.p., an advanced permanent a.d.p., an advanced permanent to drill. but when then when they make moderate fakedses, they get an advanced permit to modify. now, one of the concerns is
that, in the mess, they were sending in to m.m.s. their modifications of their plan, modifications of their plan, and m.m.s. was sending them back in five minutes. "the wall street journal" reported that, in a 24-hour period, three different a.p.m.'s were applied for. so in one sense, it didn't take them any time at all to cut through the red tape. on the other hand, in this particular example, since there's been criticisms from within industry and without industry, what b.p. did and how they drilled, how they constructed that well, perhaps in this case there should have been more vigorous oversight. host: michigan, democratic line. bob, good morning. caller: good morning. representative cassidy, is there any truth to the fact that -- guest: i've lost you, bob. host: we're going to have to move on. caller: said that they thought the federal government ought to
help b.p. pay for this. guest: bob, i just caught the last part of your statement. did somebody say in the house that the federal government should help b.p. pay for that? i've not heard anybody say that. host: no one's saying the government should take over b.p.? guest: well, people want the federal government to federalize the response, if you will. there are two aspects to the response, and one aspect is what's happening at the sea level, where the well is actually leaking. admiral thad allen has said, rightly so, the federal government does not have the resources, nor the expertise, experience, etc., to take over that operation. so the level of response at the sea bed is rightly industries, because we have the resources. now, in fairness, what the government has done is they put in government experts, as well as experts from other companies to monitor what b.p. is doing to make sure it's their best effort, so we've been told. the other level of the response, if you will, is how
do we mitigate and prevent environmental disasters. now, according to the oil pollution act, b.p. as a responsible party gets the main call on that, but the federal government has the ability to tell them what to do. but again, that's, in a sense federalized, because thad allen can tell b.p. what to do, but b.p. still has some ability to, within that instruction, decide on one course or another. host: all right. next phone call, hawaii, independent line. independent line. al, good morning. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. if you can be patient with me, a friend of mine who was a navy scientist in deep submergence who was assigned by the nixon administration to help resolve the oil spill in santa barbara in 1969, they basically utilized seenage tent models for emerge incident -- you know, just to rapidly control
the spillage. one thing he mentioned was that the navy does have the secretary of salvage, which was utilized not only during problems like finding nuclear weapons underwater, but because of deep submergence technollgy, of deep submergence technollgy, they should have had a larger hand in understanding exactly how to resolve something of this depth, especially with triple point problems. he said that they basically need to look very carefully at having a much stronger tool chest, and the navy's deep submergence and secretary of salvage already have tools on the shelf for these kind of problems because they deal with oil spills all the time. guest: again, our 3:00 conference call, which i've been fairly safe about being on, where no m.m.s. and coast guard are there, the specific
question was asked regarding d.o.d., or department of defense, capabilities. those were considered. the traditional submarine is not rated to go 800 feet below sea level, and so -- and this is 5,000 feet. so they do need remotely operated vehicles. and this was felt that those within industry were specifically designed to work on wells. those in d.o.d., if i guess they have them, for whatever reason we were told would not add to it. so d.d. has been consulted, per the people who brief us, felt like they did not have a role. host: next phone call, mount vernon, new york, republican line. you're on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'd like to engage representative cassidy one-on-one if you'll entertain me. are you aware of any oil spills in the past that have occurred? guest: oh, ok.
caller: there was one in ecuador. guest: remind me of that one. caller: that was a deliberate act. and to this day, there's an ongoing lawsuit between texaco, chevron, who at the time was texaco, between 30,000 ecuadorians for the deliberate outputting of that pollution, and it was 18 times the exxon valdez occurrence. so what is your response to that? that? i mean, these people are doing -- guest: you know, i don't know the particulars of that incident, but it does bring to mind some things that people bring up in general. folks say we need to stop the gulf of mexico drilling because we're too weded to fossil fuels. what folks need to realize is that if we stop drilling, we're not going to do away with fossil fuels, we're just going to import it, typically from opec nations, as opposed to produce it ourselves. and the other thing to know is that stat tickly, tanker spills are three times more likely
than drilling spills. that's true. tankers are more likely to spill than are drills. and unlike drilling, where you kind of know where you're drilling, tankers can one of in any place, whether it's alaska, california, rhode island, new jersey. jersey. tankers will be all over the place. the coast of france. now, i think we need to realize, if we as a country make the decision to stop drilling in the gulf, we are also making the decision to import more oil, and statistically, importation via tankers is three times more likely to result in a spill. now, folks have to adjust their thinking, but in reality, drilling is safer than transporting oil by tankers, and that's historical statistics. so i don't know the particulars of that, nathan, but i can comment in general regarding the environmental concerns.
host: one more call. cary, cincinnati, republican line. caller: i'm wondering why the relief well, or the relief well that they're going to have ready in august, isn't a retirement before they drill the main well. guest: that's one of the suggestions that is floating out there, which is you simultaneously drill two wells. clearly that increases your chance of leaking, ok? so it increases your chance of problems by two. on the other hand, if there were a problem, you would cross over and be able to interrupt the flow in the leaking well. that's one of the things being considered. i'm sure we'll hear more about that going forward. host: i want to thank you for talking to our viewers today on the "washington journal." appreciate your time. coming up next, we're going to get a view from the president of the natural resources defense council about the environmental impact of this
oil spill. but first, we want to show you some footage that a c-span crew shot this past sunday of the fort jackson bird rehabilitation center. take a look. >> there's a few coming in right now. and yesterday we received 44 brown pelicans and a couple of other birds, like a couple of seagulls and smaller birds. that was yesterday's intake. so today, more are coming in. i'm going to open that up and let you take pictures of them. and then when you see the ones
outside, that's what they look like when they're clean. they usually take a couple of feathers off. it's just for evidence. so when we wash these birds, the oil is gone. so this is kind of taking a picture of the birds so they get photographed, and the feather gets put in a freezer and locked up by the official service, because they consider it evidence. ss later down the road, when they work out what the cost of the environment is to b.p., they use this, as they have a history. they take a really long time, about an hour per bird, because this oil is really gooey, and we use dawn dish washing detergent, and we're using a
lot of -- either oil or can old aoil that we heat up to be pretty warm, and we push it in the feathers, and it helps to loosen up the oil. you know, we usually -- we always tell people that we wash these birds with a percentage of dawn. we're dumping whole bottles of dawn. proctor & gamble donated it to us, so we're using a lot. we'veebeen testing years, so we started in the early 197 he's, and in 1978, our founder started test detergents to wash birds, and she tried everything, and dawn was the wonder. and today, it is the best thing that cleans the birds. and they're so gooey, it takes a lot of scrubbing, unfortunately. >> what about the can old a? -- canola?
the bird's job is to re-establish the water. so after the bird is rinsed, then it goes into a room that's very warm and dry and has hot air blowers ruffling its feathers, to stimulate the preening behavior. when birds start preening, then they zip the microscopic structure of their feathers together, and that re-establishes their waterproofing. so the bird will be in the drying room for maybe an hour, maybe a little bit longer. and then after that, it will get moved out to an apiary, then the pelican can jump in the water, jump out, preen its feathers more, and get its feathers water-proofed. >> how much birds survive? >> with pelicans, we typically have a high success rate, high survival rate. it's very difficult to predict, especially this early in the spill, because we've had a relatively few number of birds coming in compared to the amount of oil which we know is in the environment. we would expect a high survival rate, and that's about all we can say at this time. we're getting birds from a variety of people.
most birds come from the louisiana fishery or u.s. fish and wildlife. our collection teams are working under the direction of the u.s. wildlife system, picking up birds for us. we also have occasional medical boat operators or contractors, clean-up contractors who are also there to pick up birds. >> where are you releasing the birds? >> well, when we're ready to release the birds, we work with u.s. fish and wildlife service, so fish and wildlife service plans for the safest area to release birds based on their species, based on the oil trajectories, based on the time of the year, the movement, the population is. so u.s. fish and wildlife service is in charge of release . we released some birds this morning. they left here about 4:15 in the morning, and those included brown pelicans, and those birds were taken to florida for release, away from the oil. >> tell me about your
organization. >> i'm with international bird research center in california. i'm working here under tristate delaware. we've worked together for years. i.b.r. is working with us. >> are you banned together? >> we're all people who work with these organizations, either full-time, part-time, or on a temporary basis. and some are veterinarians, some wildlife rebill tarets come by, and some people have skills and construction in other areas. >> these operations here, who is funding these operations? >> our operations here are completely funded by b.p. >> "washington journal" continues. host: francis bieneke is the
president of the natural resources defense council here to talk about the environmental impact of this oil spill. our viewers were just watching our viewers were just watching some c-span footage there of pelicans being cleaned off. what are you hearing? is the national defense resource council down there in louisiana? guest: well, i have been down there, and i'm going again. right after the spill, we sent a team for about 10 days. and we're very in close contact with a lot of organizations that are working down there. so, you know, at the beginning, oil was gushing out of the oil, and there was, i would say, a long, pregnant pause waiting for the oil to hit the shore, when would it hit, where would it hit. and now that's the phase that we're in, and people are really scrambling. and i think the thing that -- until you go down there, you really don't appreciate, particularly the wetlands of louisiana, which are the
richest wet lant environment we have in the country, how expansive it is, and also how intricate it is. you know, a barrier island, you put a boom across, hopefully you protect it, you put out the bulldozers, you cleaned up the sand. but in a wetland, both the grass and environment, which is very hard to clean, and also, literally thousands of waterways, thousands of miles of coastline, very difficult to protect and also incredibly rich from an ecological standpoint. our shrimps, our oysters, our bird life, they use those areas to produce, and that's one of the reasons the marine environment is so rich and so abunted ant. so the consequences are really untold, and the challenges of trying to protect those rich coastlines are really, really, very, very difficult. host: what about the long term? guest: well, in the long term, there are several issues. one is what's happening off shore. remember, the oil is being
generated 40 miles out. you know, we've been reading about these very large underwater plumes. we know that huge volumes of dispersement have been used for a purpose to protect that very rich coastal environment. but in the meantime, what is the impact of both the toxicity the impact of both the toxicity of the oil and the toxicity of the dispersement on the rich marine life of the gulf that creates this incredible fishery, as well as marine mammals, dolphins, sea turtles, many of which are endangered, which are all in that environment. one of the things that has surprised all of us is how little research has been done in the past on these spills and how little information we have. one of the reasons that the dispersement issue has been so controversial is we don't really have any scientific data that's adequate to determine what happens at these volumes or at these depths. so, you know, i mean, there is a lot of research that needs to go on after this to prepare us if, god forbid, anything like
this happened in the future. but in the meantime, we're pretty much operating in the unknown. one strategy to protect one thing is a tradeoff on another aspect of the natural environment. so this is truly complex, truly complicated, and really devastating, catastrophic. host: the president has put a moratorium on deepwater drilling, but he has -- the administration has lifted the moratorium for shallow water. what's the impact of that? guest: first of all, the deepwater moratorium is critical, because what's been clear to every single person watching this unfold over the last 51 days is no one knows how to contain this in the deepwater environment. and until new standards, new technologies are developed and new safety procedures and the independent commission that the president has announced comes forth with its findings, we have to really put a hold on that. in the shallow water of the marine environment, it's just as vulnerable as in the deepwater environment. i think one thing that has also
become apparent is that the oversight enforcement and regulatory review of the service has really been woefully inadequate. and, you know, that has been clear literally from the start clear literally from the start of this, and i think also going back to the massey coal mining disaster where 29 people died, also the interior department, there is a long history of much too cozy relationship between the energy industry and the the energy industry and the interior department. that has to be completely overhauled. so the shallow water sites, we need to ensure that there are adequate environmental protection, that adequate procedures have been followed, that the full extent of the law has been adhered to before those go forward, and i think that, you know, the shallow water, the deepwater, we know there's a big problem in the deep water, but we really know there's a lot of problems with the procedures and interior. and until we can be positive that those have been overhauled, i think you have to be concerned about that environment as well.
>> critics of environmental groups have said, environmental groups are to blame for why there's deepwater drilling, that if it weren't for environmental groups, there would be shallow water drilling. >> there is a lot of drilling. there are over 3,000 operating wells in the gulf of mexico in the shallow water. the shallow water. i mean, that is a massive resource that has been developed over the past, i guess, century in the gulf of mexico. i don't know how long. you know, the environmental community hasn't stopped any of those. it provides 30% of the oil of the country. i've heard those allegations. i think they're ridiculous. host: congressman is working on an energy bill. what would you like to see in that bill related to what is happening in the gulf? guest: i think the spill in the gulf has brought the reality of the last 40 years of energy policy in the united states, which is we don't have a comprehensive energy policy, and we don't have one that is moving us forward on cleaner,
more efficient technologies. more efficient technologies. so congress actually has been debating for over a year moving forward on clean energy and climate legislation, legislation passed in the house last year. it's now moving -- there's a different version of it, moving through the senate, and i think that the spill is actually a great opportunity to explain why we need comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. that legislation needs to deal with many of the conditions that allowed this bill to occur, particularly the occur, particularly the oversight in the regulatory authority of the interior department. but in addition to that, it needs us to get on a clean energy pathway where we reduce the amount of oil that we use going forward. we're a very oil-addicted nation. you know, we have 250 million cars on the road. we have something like 3% of the world's people, but use 25% of the world's oil. that is not sustainable over the long term.
that's why we're drilling at 5,000 feet, a very fragile environment in the gulf of mexico. it's why we're exporting oil from the tar sands in alberta, which is devastating the forest up there. it's why people are interested in exploiting oil in the arctic, much more fragile arctic environment off of alaska. it's because we have a tremendous addiction, and we tremendous addiction, and we have been talking about it since president carter was president in the 197 's, saying we need a new, more efficient energy policy. and we just haven't done it. and now is the time where i think the entire nation is clear why we need to get on a clean energy pathway, which actually provides great opportunities for the country. i mean, new technologies, innovation, more efficiency, just new ways to approach transportation issues. so it's, i think, a very severe need for the country, but i also think it creates real opportunities still. host: phone calls for frances
beinecke, louisiana, democratic line. tony, you're on the air. caller: good morning. first off, thank you for c-span. second off, thank you very much for that little film from fort jackson, because being from down here, i'm only five minutes from theman -- from the marsh, and i see the brown pelican every time we go to the marsh to fish, and i also see the raccoons, rabbits. it's incredible to wildlife. this is called the sportsman's paradise for a reason, ok? and every time i see pictures of birds that are covered with oil, i get so sad, i want to cry. but seeing these volunteers coming from all over the country to fort jackson, god bless these people, because that's our state bird. all of these resources down here are very important to the people like me that grew up
here in the marsh, that fish and hunt and enjoy it so much. thank you for what you do, miss frances. i'm just overwhelmed this morning. thank you. guest: well, thank you so much for saying that. i think looking at these videos of cleaning up the birds, you really have to thank the volunteers and people who come together from all over the country to be available to louisiana, to the gulf coast, to really ensure that there is a maximum clean-up operation. i think you're right when you see the oil, oil pelicans, it's really devastate willing. but your hope is renewed when you really see the response of those volunteer workers and professionals in the wildlife clean-up. i know i am. thank you for all you do and for appreciating how valuable that marshland is. host: washington, d.c., republican line. carol, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i have a question, but first i
just wanted to just comment. with the exxon valdez, i know + they did an investigatiin, and from the very beginning, you know, news came forwarddthat this was, you know, related to the incompetence of the captain on board and previous convictions he had for drinking while on duty. what do we know as far as this investigation goes? what was the cause? was it terrorism? was it just a manmade accident? what's going on and why isn't guest: i think the exxon valdez was basically an accident. you know, there are often -- i mean, actually, if you look around the world, there are tanker spills with fair frequency for one reason or another. the reason i think the exxon valdez was so important was, one, it was a massive supertanker. the volume was considerable. and two, it was a very fragile, pristine alaska environment with wonderful, rich, natural resources. so it was the juxtaposition of,
you know, this huge oil disaster in a pristine environment. and one thing about the exxon valdez and, you know, one of my colleagues at nrdc has a vial of sendment from prince william sound that was collected 10 years after the exxon valdez spill. and when you take the top off of that vial and open it up, the oil is as potent as it is, for example, at your gas pump. i mean, you can just smell the oil in that jar 10 years later. so i think that it was just a very serious, devastating accident to the region and one that has had long, long-term consequences. you know, many of these things, they're problems of human error off of technology, but the consequences are truly devastating. host: there are news reports this morning that there are several lawsuits being filed against b.p. will your group file a lawsuit?+ guest: there will be, i am sure, thousands of lawsuits against b.p., individuals making claims on losses that
they've experienced. there will an lot of lawsuits about whether federal laws have been fully adhered to under the marine mammal protection act, you know, the natural environmental policy act, a host of statutes that are designed to protect wildlife and the natural world. and at nrdc, our organization does litigation, and most likely we will engage in some, although that has not happened although that has not happened yet. but, you know, there's a lot of accountability that needs to be done here. and no doubt it will be, and it will as the exxon valdez took literally years, no doubt this will too. host: boston, independent line. matt, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call, and thank you for c-span. i guess i'm calling just to vent my frustrations, because i look up to your guest and get her feedback. i graduated with a degree in
biology with the intent to go into wildlife ecology and conservation. but, you know, it's really hard to get a job in that field. and i pretty much had to go into biotech, even though that's not really where my heart lies. and i don't know, that's one aspect of it. i'm just calling to, you know, express my frustration, mainly with the government in terms of response. it's kind of, you know, knowing that all these conservation jobs, where the vast majority are shared between nonprofits and government, it's really and government, it's really disheartening to see the response of the government, the lack of response, and, you know, the lack of urgency, and it really puts a bad taste in my mouth, in my mind on, you know, do people care about this? is there urgency in this? there really doesn't seem to be. there doesn't seem to be funding. it seemed very clear that both obama and b.p. have tried to
hide it until it's absolutely necessary. host: are you seeing that the nrdc is getting more interest in what you do because of the oil spill? does that translate into more donations? guest: oh, that's interestinn. well, first of all, i think, you know, i read a study that 85% of the american people is watching this story. i think the public is fixated on this because it is so visual and because you can see that oil gushing out of that riser every date. i mean, it's almost -- host: we have it up on the screen right now. guest: it's amazing to watch that and see the failed attempts to try to correct it. so i think that it has been a great opportunity to really talk about not only the consequences of the spill, but, as i mentioned earlier, why are we out there drilling in the first place because of this very, very great need we have for using oil each and of day? and that's all of us.
who here isn't driving a car at some point? so i think it's captured the public's attention, and certainly our members, and we have about a million activists around the country are very focused on this and wanted to be sure that we use all the resources available to ensure that this never happens again. at the same time, we actually went out with a fundraising drive to support local groups ii the gulf, and we got a very positive response and we'll be sending every one of those dollars down to the gulf coast fund in louisiana, which is a network of local organizations that are working on a response to this spill. host: do you know how much you were able to raise? guest: we raised about $80,000. i was really pleased that we were able to do that and send it down there, because it is the organizations on the ground, and you can see it from all the footage. those are the people seeing the effect, the oystermen, all the businesses that go along with that, conservation groups, those in the recreation
business. business. i mean, the human toll is as devastating as the toll to the natural environment. it's really powerful. host: we had a viewer on wednesday bring up that volunteers are being turned away down there. are you hearing reports of that? guest: well, i think -- first of all, i think it's so great that people have turned out with such offers to go down there and help. it's fantastic. but, you know, you have to manage that, and there's just -- i mean, you can seep from the wildlife clean-up, there's a certain amount of expertise, but there's also just a limited amount of space and volume. so, you know, i'm hoping that they're ramping up, and clearly, as the oil moves along the coastline and it gets further and further appealed, that they're going to missouri and more volunteers. i hope that there's a maximum use of the people who are really offering their services, because it's going to take a lot. and, you know, it is a question of getting -- deploying as many people as you can and managing that, and, you know, i'm hoping the coast guard, b.p., state
and federal agencies really use that to maximum advantage, because i think that's the because i think that's the great thing about the american people, they want to help. you know, we saw that after haiti, and this is here at home, and we certainly saw it after katrina. i think one thing that people have to understand, and i'm 3 this show does, the people who are being affected by this, the consequences of this spill, are the same people who experienced katrina. and when you go down there and you talk to them and you talk to the oyster men and the people who operate the shrimp boats and just people in the communities along those coastlines, you know, they experienced devastation just experienced devastation just five years ago. and now they are experiencing a different kind of devastation. they are very, very resilient, and you must admire them, but you just can't imagine that having to go through that yourself. host: we're talking about the environmental impact of the oil spill on the gulf coast. our guest is frances beinecke, the president. natural resources defense council. next phone call, new liberia,
louisiana. republican line, charles. caller: yes, i was listening to all this crap. look, i raised out in the oil field as a young man, and those days, they blowed the well in you go back there today, ck. there's not a sign of it. it came from mother nature this. came from mother nature. give it time, it will go back to mother nature. host: what about that point? guest: well, you know, first of all, it did come. this is millions of years old natural life that has been compressed and noo we're trying to use it again. i think the natural world is resilient, but i think that it's also a world that we depend on. so, you know, look at the shrimpers and the oystermen. they're out of work. they don't know how long they're going to be out of work no. one really knows how long it will take for the natural world to recover. so it's absolutely critical to clean up as much as possible. i mean, a certain amount will evaporate into the air. a certain amount will disperse into the water column. but meanwhile, the oil that's
coming up on shore and it's causing those oyster beds and shrimping grounds to be closed, we have to do everything we can to minimize that impact and ensure it doesn't happen again. we depend on the natural environment, and we really value it. and, you know, we have a responsibility to manage it as well as we possibly can. so yeah, the natural world is resilient, but it needs help in this case, in my view. host: los angeles, democratic line. victor, good morning. caller: yes, thank you for your service. i appreciate what you're trying to do there with the marshlands and how difficult it is. in fact, several scientists that were interviewed said that it's almost an impossible once it's in, that destruction, the amount of years that it's going take to come back, and i think you'll verify that there really is no way to measure it except that we are not going to see it for a long time come back the way it was. one question or comment. are you getting the entire
support that you have asked for with reference to what you need to do? and also, comment, i understand that the russia with finland put a small mega ton -- now, there might have been one and blew it and closed the well, but you can never reuse the well again. has that been looked into? have you heard that? or has anyone discussed that, blowing it and then closing it? maybe there would be larger ramifications. i don't know. host: i'll let you respond. i think the caller is confusing your organization a little bit with perhaps -- guest: yeah. host: perhaps thinking it's a government organization. guest: yeah, that's right. we're a not for profit organization working on the environment, and we have a lot of people working on this issue. as far as the government goes, i mean, i think they're ramping up their effort every day. i think as they watch this spread, it's clear from the president's tone, his multiple trips down to the gulf, that
he's determined to put the resources of the federal government behind this. i see that happening more every day. as far as the explosion or the detonation in russia, that was a natural gas well, and my understanding is it was onshore. we have not heard they are examining that kind of effort examining that kind of effort in the gulf. i think what's going to happen -- i think always the previous guest indicated -- there's two relief wells being drilled to actually intersect this particular pipeline. and that's the best hope to close this off, and the oil industry has experience with that. that. the only thick is 2 takes a couple of months, 60 days, for that to happen. meanwhile, the oil continues to gush. that's why they've been trying to do all these other things to contain it in the last several weeks, none of which have been very successful, although the most recent containment effort was more successful. but no, we are not proposing or looking at actually exploding
something to block that oil from coming up. host: senator lamar alexander, republican leader in the senate, writes today in "the wall street journal," an energy strategy for grown-ups. and he writes about -- that you need to put more onshore resources for oil and natural gas back on the table, we need to be drilling in alaska. you addressed that issue. but he also says that the government needs to -- environmentalists need to stop pretending that wind power has anything o do with reducing america's dependence on oil. he said windmills generate electricity, not transportation file, and wind has become the let pock of the 21st century and a taxpayer ripoff. wind produces only 1.3% of u.s. electricity, but receives federal taxpayer subsidies 25 times as much per mega watt hour as subsidies for all other forms of lectricity production. guest: well, those are two different issues, so let me respond to senator alexander.
he's never been a proponent of wind. he's been an on the part of pobet of wind power for quite a long time. it is on the electricity side. we actually disagree with him. pe think there is a lot of potential for wind. it's in the single digits as far as providing electricity in the united states. we think it can get up into the double digits. it's not going to be the sole source of power, but it does have a role to play. and if did you to europe, you can see that, whether you're in denmark or germany or spain. there's tremendous amount of wind, and they have wind onshore, offshore increasingly. so i actually completely disagree with him on that point. on the point of transportation fuels, what needs to happpn in transportation is we need much more efficient cars, we need cars that get, you know, 50 to 60 miles to a gallon, not the 35 miles to a gallon. we're going to be going towards that when we're in the low 20's, and that's technologically possible, and we need to go there. we need to invest heavily in public transportation for our urban areas so that people have alternatives and can get out of
their cars. and we need to develop in a pattern that provides people access to public transportation so that we stop the approach, the sprawl that we've had over the last 50 years. and we need cleaner burning alternative fuels, and people are looking at that as well, not ethanol-based fuel, but not ethanol-based fuel, but biofuels that are created out of other substances. so there are alternative pathways for automobiles and for transportation, and we need to be looking at those aggressively. host: new orleans on the repubbican line. richard, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. and for this program. i think it's been years since i've called in. i've got it take issue with things your guest said, made several points as she was talking, that i hope i can just go through them quickly, then if she wants to address some of them, that's fine. but i don't believe the people who favor the moratorium realize the full economic
impact of it. i think they fail to realize how many thousands of people how many thousands of people along the coast are dependent on these oil rigs for their living. it's not just a few hundred workers who work on the rigs, it's literally thousands of people in the support jobs. and most of the experts, most of the oil people say, if these of the oil people say, if these rigs have to shut down, they're not going to sit there idle. they're going to leave, they're going to leave the country, and they're not going to come back. they're not going to just sit this out. this out. also, i've heard other officials say they want to host b.p. responsible for the lost wages these people have. i just don't think that's possible. that's way too remote from a legal standpoint for b.p. or anybody involved in that particular drilling operation to be held responsible. that's an independent act being
caused by an act of the president. host: richard, let's leave it there and let our guest respond, because the economic impact of this moratorium is something that our last guest brought up as well. host: yeah, i was listening to him, and i certainly understand that. when you go down to louisiana, it's very apparent there are two main industries. one is the oil and gas industry, and the other is the fishing industry. fishing industry is already out of work. you don't want to put the oil and gas industry out of work, no question about it. but as i mentioned, there are 3,000 operating wells, and there's tremendous amount of employment with operations that will continue. i do think it's really important to understand what went wrong here and ensure that it doesn't happen again. that's the responsibility of the federal government. they need to get at it. they need to do it quickly, and they need to figure out how to do it with a minimum impact on those who are employed by the sexoil gas industry. i totally agree with that. i think that b.p. is accountable for this. i mean, the reason that these
moratoriums are going in place is because of this spill. the reason the spill happened, we have to find out, but it's very clear that there are inadequate safeguards, inadequate alternatives, redundant operations so they could correct it when it happens, and that there weren't adequate safety and clean-up procedures in place when it did occur. so for the long-term benefit of the gulf of mexico and all the people that depend on that resources, we have to get this right, and we have to take the time to do. that host: salem, massachusetts. fred is joining us on the independent line. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i'd like to address the long-term impact of the dispersements, which is basically a detergent. i've been on several conservation group boards, and one thing that came up in the past is the effort to restock the atlantic salmon. it didn't succeed in a lot of the rivers because the ground
water that ran into the rivers water that ran into the rivers had detergent, and that acted as a hormone, i believe estrogen, so that the males actually became sterile, and therefore, you know, affected future generations. and we know now that the tunas migrate on the surface, live on the surface. that's just one species, but it could have long-term effects on the reproduction capabilities of all fishes that could be susceptible to a detergent use. host: miss beinecke? guest: i think you're absolutely right. as i mentioned earlier, the reason the dispersements were used was to protect the coastline, to break the oil down before it reached the coast so that it didn't coat those very valuable coastal wells which you have in massachusetts as well, so you're very aware of the value of them.
but by the same token, it's gotten into the water where the tuna has spawned. there are all kinds of fish larvae and fishests and larvae and fishests and plankton and all kinds of marine life in that marine environment. and the reality is we really don't know what the impact is, but we do know that the dispersements are toxic, as is the oil, so one would have to assume that there are long-term impacts from this. and it's imperative that we get -- one, that we reduce the amount of dispersements that is being used going forward, and e.p.a. has directed b.p. to greatly reduce the volume of dispersements that they're currently using, and that is currently using, and that is also critically important, and i think the national oceanic administration is working on this, to ensure that a research program goes into place so that we do understand, and so the next time -- if there ever is a next time, and hopefully there isn't -- we know what to use in what circumstances, at what volume, and for how long.
and right now we don't have those answers. you're absolutely right. host: next phone call. dale on the republican line from st. petersburg, florida. caller: yeah, i'd like to comment. i heard some divers went down i heard some divers went down and looked up and could not see the light, the oil was so thick. that tells me everything in the gulf is going to die because of that. and you're talking about dispersements. i believe that was done by the government and everybody else to hide the oil. as far as i'm concerned, the federal government, they all had a hand in that, and i say vote them all out, and i'm getting tired of the gulf spill . it's a disaster. host: i couldn't agree more. guest: we should use catastrophe, because that's really what it is. i think that, you know, as i say, there's tremendous oil out there. you know, whether you see it or whether you don't, and wherever it is, it is toxic, it's having
it is, it is toxic, it's having an impact on marine life. it's having an immediate impact and long-term impact. as i mentioned, 10 years after the spill or 20 years after the spill in prince william sound with the exxon valdez, there's still oil there, and there's still impacts from that. so, you know, we can all anticipate that there are very severe long-term consequences from this disaster and that we need to minimize the damage. we need to reform the procedures, and we need to protect fragile places going forward. host: kansas city, missouri, democratic line. paul. caller: thank you very much. and the two previous callers just stole a lot of my fire, but i want to add a couple of things about the dispersements. ok, number one, i think they should just totally remove them. i saw something on tv where they've got a tube running down there and they're shooting there and they're shooting dispersement into the upcoming oil. now, here's the thing. while there may not be any specific research on this, there's tons and tons of information about the ecology of spreading pollution.
and what they're doing here is they're going to have what's called utropicatio in n, an overabundance of one of the levels of plants and animals in the ocean. they're going to suck up the oxygen and cause dead zones. they're doing this to hide the oil. i agree with the guy. i don't agree with his solution that we should fire people. i think we need oil, and i'm 100% behind doing oil, but these guys tried to do this on the cheap. and they need to be accountable for that. we make sure we get it and get it safe. but right now, they're use dispersements hide the crime, and these people ought to go to prison. guest: i think b.p. is going to be held nottable fully. as you know, the president has asked the attorney general to really investigate exactly what happened here and figure out what the responsibilities are and prosecute them to the extent the law requires. so, you know, i'm confident that that will happen. in the meantime, that's not going to help what's happening in the gulf of mexico, and that's where the federal
government really has to come in with maximum resources to ensure that this damage is minimized and that we get knowledge going forward over the long term so that we can the long term so that we can prepare, prepare in the future. the dispersement issue, it is an incredibly controversial issue. it is a toxic substance, and they have -- i know they have reduced a huge amount of the volume that's being put down there. and, you know, i wish we all had more information on it, because you're just adding more toxicity into that marine environment, no question about it. host: louisville, kentucky, republican line. helen, good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate you taking my call. i wonder why the environmentalist groups allowed the media and didn't push them. they knew the oil would eventually get onshore. she's very knowledgeable.
we knew there would be an economic impact. but none f these org we knew there would be an economic impact. but none of these organizations push the media that wasn't asking questions to ask questions. it's very baffling to me. a month goes by when all -- if it was on the chesapeake bay or it was out in california, these people would be a lot more concerned. it would then -- guest: first of all, i'm not sure agree with that. i think the envirrnmental community, plus the country, is deeply concerned about the impact on the gulf. i'm going down there again. we a team down there, there are many other organizations down there. the gulf of mexico is one of the richest marine environments we have in this country, and it's important that the public at large understand that and really work to protect ito p an that's certainly what we're trying to do.
i actually think the media coverage has been phenomenal on this. i mean, what story lasts for 51 days these dice in the united states of america? almost none. so i appmeanud the continuing coverage, because i think it's really important for the american public to witness what is going on down there, not is going on down there, not only to witness what the environmental impacts are, but also to witness what in essence all of us have, in some w on ts participated in, because we're all, you know, active users of oil, which is why, you know, we're going so far off shore in such fragile environments. so, you know, i am sorry, but i have to disagree with you, because i think the coverage has been pretty phenomenal. host: we have a couple of minutes here left with our guest, frances beinecke with the national resources d: wense council. council. robert on the democratic line in ohiwe' you're on the air. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. ocou know, i've gwe'ren this b.
gusher a lot of thought, and it seems to me thato p at the rate we're going, the oil is going to continue to gush for some time. we have prowas bly pretty i wel have destroyed that ocean. i'm thinking, wall, don't we t i some of this money that everybody's talking about spending around and invest in plants guest: every technology, they have to use those for maximum purposes at this point. i mean, you know, one of the things i think that was dismaying is once they got the
container vessel on top, they could only actually contain a certain amount of it because of the size of the ship. i mean, they have to ramp up the operation down there, and they have to use every technology that's available to them, which can be demonstrated them, which can be demonstrated to be successful. so i agree with you. and then i just want to say that, you know, what we really -- we need to also not only focus on what's happening in the gulf, but really pivot to what we need to do as a nation to move forwards a clean energy future, one that uses resources much more efficiently and has alternative transportation choices for all americans. and i think that, you know, we need to do both. it's actually critical right now. host: republican line, james, go ahead, republican line, florida. caller: i have a comment more or less along the lines of prevention of future oil spills. i've noticed that their last efforts atttrying to drop a blow-out preventer on top of the one that's malfunctioned, i
don't understand why they don't have two blowout preventers to start with in a series. if one doesn't work, you ought to have the other one where it could work. guest: well, you know, i think that every single person in the united states at this point agrees with that point. they should have had redundant systems so that if one malfunctioned, they could put another in place. in other parts of the world, that's required. it wasn't required by m.m.s. it wasn't put in place by b.p. this is just another example of how we ensure we have better how we ensure we have better regulatory oversight, separation between the industry and the regulators, and that we have much better enforcement. so, you know, you're absolutely right. host: that has to be the last word. frances beinecke, thank you. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: that does it for today's "washington journal." we'll be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thanks for watching. .